Kunhi Raman, J.

1. The defendant is the petitioner. The suit was to recover the amount due under a promissory note executed by him in favour of one Lakshmi Amrnal who subsequently endorsed the note to the plaintiff-respondent. On the evidence, the trial Court has found that the suit promissory note, Ex. A, was executed by the defendant in consideration of past illicit intercourse and has decreed the suit.

2. The petitioners learned advocate relies upon the decision of Sundaram Chetty, J., in Ganapathi Chetti v. Sundararaja Pillai I.L.R. 1930 Mad. 239, where the learned Judge took the view that past illicit cohabitation is immoral consideration under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and it cannot therefore support a promise. The plaintiff-respondents learned advocate on the other hand argues on the authority of certain other decisions which will be referred to presently that so far as this Court is concerned, it is now settled that although future illicit cohabitation cannot support a promise for the reason that it is immoral consideration, yet there is nothing wrong in a promise made in consideration of past cohabitation. It can only amount to a promise to compensate a p